Maximiliano Adam Ledezma v. Raymond Madden

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Central District Maximiliano Adam Ledezma v. Raymond Madden

Maximiliano Adam Ledezma v. Raymond Madden

Petitioner:	Maximiliano Adam Ledezma
Respondent:	Raymond Madden
Case Number:	2:2016cv02794
Filed:	April 22, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge:	Dolly M. Gee
Presiding Judge:	Steve Kim
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
October 17, 2016	Filing 15 JUDGMENT by Judge Dolly M. Gee. IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed, and this action is dismissed. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (mkr)
August 12, 2016	Filing 11 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WITHIN 30 DAYS RE: MIXED PETITION by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. It appears to the Court that the Petition is mixed because Ground 4 has not been fairly presented to the California Supreme Court in a state habeas petition. Because the Court has no authority to consider mixed petitions, unless Petitioner deletes the unexhausted c;aim, the Petition is subject to outright dismissal as a mixed petition under Rose v. Lundy. In addition, Petitioner is expressly cautioned that by th e rules of this Court the "failure to file any required document, or failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting...of the motion (to dismiss)." Local Rule 7-12. THEREFORE, within 30 days of the date of this Order, Petitioner is ordered to show cause why Respondent' Motion to Dismiss should not be granted on the ground that Petitioner has failed to exhaust all his federal habeas claims. Petitioner may satisfy and discharge this Order to Show Cause by filing, within 30 days of the date of this Order, either (1) an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss that sets forth Petitioner's position as to whether Ground 4 is unexhausted and/or procedurally defaulted; or (2) a First Amended Petition tha t deletes Ground 4 and alleges - only - his three exhausted claims (Grounds One through Three). If Petitioner does not file a timely response to this Order to Show Cause or a timely First Amended Petition deleting his unexhausted claim, Petitioner is advised that the Court will recommend dismissal of the Petition. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS). (mkr)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 17, 2016

Filing 15 JUDGMENT by Judge Dolly M. Gee. IT IS ADJUDGED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed, and this action is dismissed. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (mkr)

August 12, 2016

Filing 11 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WITHIN 30 DAYS RE: MIXED PETITION by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. It appears to the Court that the Petition is mixed because Ground 4 has not been fairly presented to the California Supreme Court in a state habeas petition. Because the Court has no authority to consider mixed petitions, unless Petitioner deletes the unexhausted c;aim, the Petition is subject to outright dismissal as a mixed petition under Rose v. Lundy. In addition, Petitioner is expressly cautioned that by th e rules of this Court the "failure to file any required document, or failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting...of the motion (to dismiss)." Local Rule 7-12. THEREFORE, within 30 days of the date of this Order, Petitioner is ordered to show cause why Respondent' Motion to Dismiss should not be granted on the ground that Petitioner has failed to exhaust all his federal habeas claims. Petitioner may satisfy and discharge this Order to Show Cause by filing, within 30 days of the date of this Order, either (1) an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss that sets forth Petitioner's position as to whether Ground 4 is unexhausted and/or procedurally defaulted; or (2) a First Amended Petition tha t deletes Ground 4 and alleges - only - his three exhausted claims (Grounds One through Three). If Petitioner does not file a timely response to this Order to Show Cause or a timely First Amended Petition deleting his unexhausted claim, Petitioner is advised that the Court will recommend dismissal of the Petition. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS). (mkr)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Maximiliano Adam Ledezma v. Raymond Madden
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Maximiliano Adam Ledezma
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: Raymond Madden
Represented By:	Stephanie C Brenan
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?